The morality of an atheist, I would say, is purer than that of a lot of religious people. The atheist do right because they know it to be right.

How do they know it to be right? Where does that knowledge come from?

Morality is more about the society in which you are raised. If you live in a religious society, obviously your morals are going to be received from religios teachings. A society can be law-abiding and have a sense of right and wrong without relying on a higher power to dictate it.

As a side note, why would Yahweh care if his followers had a BLT? Given the odds of dying from trichinosis from undercooked pork, it's more likely that dietary restrictions were tied to survival of the clan and social purity to keep heathen foods from infiltrating a society along with their other ideas.

The morality of an atheist, I would say, is purer than that of a lot of religious people. The atheist do right because they know it to be right.

How do they know it to be right? Where does that knowledge come from?

Morality is more about the society in which you are raised. If you live in a religious society, obviously your morals are going to be received from religios teachings. A society can be law-abiding and have a sense of right and wrong without relying on a higher power to dictate it.

As a side note, why would Yahweh care if his followers had a BLT? Given the odds of dying from trichinosis from undercooked pork, it's more likely that dietary restrictions were tied to survival of the clan and social purity to keep heathen foods from infiltrating a society along with their other ideas.

Living in the middle of the Bible Belt, I can say that many people don't understand that you can have morals without a belief in God. I think it's that they don't believe that some people don't need a higher power to "enforce" their own belief system. As such, without the "fear of God" backing a belief/morality system, they believe those morals to be entirely situational and subject to change on a whim. I agree with Isgrimnur - the morality of many atheists/agnostics is far more rigid than many of those who proclaim to believe in God. There are a lot of religious hypocrites who will knowingly betray their supposed belief system, claim the "devil made me do it" and then say they get redemption from God. No personal responsibility, no remorse...athiests and agnostics don't get that "get out of jail free" card that some religions have. Some - not a majority, but some - will use that escape clause in a religion as a crutch to feel better about themselves and won't take that personal responsibility.

As for the second point, the restriction on pork and shellfish are directly related to health issues. Without cooking at high heat - and a campfire isn't high heat - there's a good chance of getting sick from pork and shellfish. That became institutionalized and codified at some point.

Rowdy's question in the OP could just as easily be applied to any number of religious belief systems - how is Catholicism more right than Shintoism, Buddhism, or Unitarianism? As Isgrimnur noted, most people just adhere to the moral code of the religion in which they were raised.

As an atheist and sometime scientist, I generally subscribe to the values of secular humanism, rendered by Wikipedia as:

Need to test beliefs – A conviction that dogmas, ideologies and traditions, whether religious, political or social, must be weighed and tested by each individual and not simply accepted on faith.

Reason, evidence, scientific method – A commitment to the use of critical reason, factual evidence and scientific methods of inquiry, rather than faith and mysticism, in seeking solutions to human problems and answers to important human questions.

Fulfillment, growth, creativity – A primary concern with fulfillment, growth and creativity for both the individual and humankind in general.

Search for truth – A constant search for objective truth, with the understanding that new knowledge and experience constantly alter our imperfect perception of it.

This life – A concern for this life and a commitment to making it meaningful through better understanding of ourselves, our history, our intellectual and artistic achievements, and the outlooks of those who differ from us.

Ethics – A search for viable individual, social and political principles of ethical conduct, judging them on their ability to enhance human well-being and individual responsibility.

Building a better world – A conviction that with reason, an open exchange of ideas, good will, and tolerance, progress can be made in building a better world for ourselves and our children.

There's certainly some cross-over with most modern religions, and it's compatible with the core American principle of the separation of church and state. It's true that one can't claim that it's got the approval of an omniscient external force, but that seems to me to be a virtue rather than a flaw.

Exactly. Morality is designed to enhance the survival and prosperity of one's social group, and to define one's position within that group. It is a necessary consequence of being a social animal.

One's particular ethical code will depend upon what group defines it, since improving the lot of one's own group often comes at the expense of other groups. Your ethical relationship toward your fellow man will differ if it's defined by a small self-sufficient tribe or a vast interconnected empire because their survival needs are different.

Religion is primarily a mechanism for imposing the group's morality upon individuals.

If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

Quote from: SensuousLettuce on October 13, 2008, 11:14:13 PM

...and that Christian's believe that everyone who disagrees with them are evil.

First, I am not sure I feel that Christians think others are "evil", but they certainly make it clear that It's Their Way or The Highway. So, I am sure you'll debate this one as "Evil" is such a specific word, but would you accept the general sentiment? An example could be how Jesus treats his most faithful disciple, Peter, when he disagreed with Jesus:

He spoke plainly about this, and Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him.

But when Jesus turned and looked at his disciples, he rebuked Peter. "Get behind me, Satan!" he said. "You do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men."

But that was just Peter trying to tell Jesus not to go get himself crucified, so it may not be a good example really. (Peter was just looking out for his friend, and Jesus was trying to say "You Don't Get IT!" Of course, that did come with the label "Satan".)

So, maybe we could look to Paul. He's got harsh words for those that insist that Christians must subscribe to Judaic law.Philippians 3:2-3

Quote

Watch out for those dogs, those men who do evil, those mutilators of the flesh. For it is we who are the circumcision, we who worship by the Spirit of God, who glory in Christ Jesus, and who put no confidence in the flesh—

I think it's fair to say that this passage calls Jews 'dogs', 'evil doers', and 'mutilators of the flesh'. No?

If you need more, let me know... but I think this pretty much says it all.

If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

Yep. Says nothing about hate. So people who get the death penalty from the government are hated by the government? Yes I would like another citation. One that answers the charge that Christianity encourages hatred of gays.

Quote

First, I am not sure I feel that Christians think others are "evil", but they certainly make it clear that It's Their Way or The Highway. So, I am sure you'll debate this one as "Evil" is such a specific word, but would you accept the general sentiment?

There is only one way. You're correct. There's only one way to do many things. This is the most important one. And Christian's don't believe people are 'Evil' but rather sinful.

Quote

An example could be how Jesus treats his most faithful disciple, Peter, when he disagreed with Jesus:

He spoke plainly about this, and Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him.

But when Jesus turned and looked at his disciples, he rebuked Peter. "Get behind me, Satan!" he said. "You do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men."But that was just Peter trying to tell Jesus not to go get himself crucified, so it may not be a good example really. (Peter was just looking out for his friend, and Jesus was trying to say "You Don't Get IT!" Of course, that did come with the label "Satan".)

You read the words but don't get the greater meaning. He wasn't just looking out for his friend. Read it again in context of Christ's purpose and mission.

Quote

So, maybe we could look to Paul. He's got harsh words for those that insist that Christians must subscribe to Judaic law.Watch out for those dogs, those men who do evil, those mutilators of the flesh. For it is we who are the circumcision, we who worship by the Spirit of God, who glory in Christ Jesus, and who put no confidence in the flesh—

I think it's fair to say that this passage calls Jews 'dogs', 'evil doers', and 'mutilators of the flesh'. No?

No. It's very easy to quote things out of context and bend them to your whims which is what you've done here. Paul was a "Jew's Jew" so that's not what he's saying at all. Again, because you take some items out of context in a passionate attempt to support an insupportable claim may reinforce your own ego, but does little to support your argument.

Quote

Do you want/need more?

All quoted out of context and absent the overarching themes of Christianity. So yes, I don't want more, I want any.

Quote from: pr0ner on October 14, 2008, 03:24:25 AM

Of course, ATB said he's done replying to posts on the topic; otherwise, as a Christian myself, I'd be interested to see what he has to say about Unagi's post.

I'm going to take it on faith that you're being sincere here and not baiting. But I would follow up with the question- why bother? You know where these discussions lead.

I would say to an extent that for some Christians, the citations Unagi quoted are good enough to make his point, ATB.

There are Christians who take the Bible extremely literally. That if it's not in the Bible, it didn't exist (such as dinosaurs). To them, if the Bible says gays should be killed, that's pretty much free reign to hate them. Just look at that Westboro Baptist Church, for instance...a clear example of Christians taking the Bible literally, and making Unagi's point fair and valid.

As for why I'm bothering? Because some Christians are actually open minded. I question whether you are, with how condesending you can be when the discussion of religion comes up.

If you need more, let me know... but I think this pretty much says it all.

If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

Yep. Says nothing about hate. So people who get the death penalty from the government are hated by the government? Yes I would like another citation. One that answers the charge that Christianity encourages hatred of gays.

OK, if that isn't gonna float it for you - then I am not playing this game.Perhaps we need to define 'Hate' here.

Merrian-Webster tells me that the word "detestable" = "arousing or meriting intense dislike". So, I am sorry - but TO ME the Bible just said that a gay man's behaviour merits hate.

Bringing up modern day capital punishment is irrelevant, but I am quite sure we could get a few people to say that a culture only puts to death people guilty of crimes that merit intense disklike... that merit 'hate'.

Here is the problem you and I are going to have in discussing this:You will not agree that putting a Gay Man To Death is the same as hating him.I argue it is.I think you look at the word 'hate' as being special. You might "detest" something, but you wont go so far as to "hate" something... fine. Semantics.

The bible was translated at some point, and in the passage above - the translator chose the word "Detestable". You need to consider what that word means and if it has any kinship to the word 'Hate'.

Quote from: SensuousLettuce on October 14, 2008, 01:56:58 PM

There is only one way. You're correct. There's only one way to do many things. This is the most important one. And Christian's don't believe people are 'Evil' but rather sinful.

To a great many people, being 'evil' or 'acts of evil' are the same as being 'sinful' and 'acts of sin'. Perhaps you could help me, would you tell me your definition of 'Evil' please?

By the way, I don't feel that the bible actually teaches that "others are Evil", but I did understand what the person who made that statement meant.I think the original poster should have said "Christians think everyone else is unrighteous and doomed to hell."

If you want - you can just say that you agree with the above statement, and we can move past this particular point.

Quote from: SensuousLettuce on October 14, 2008, 01:56:58 PM

Quote

So, maybe we could look to Paul. He's got harsh words for those that insist that Christians must subscribe to Judaic law.Watch out for those dogs, those men who do evil, those mutilators of the flesh. For it is we who are the circumcision, we who worship by the Spirit of God, who glory in Christ Jesus, and who put no confidence in the flesh—

I think it's fair to say that this passage calls Jews 'dogs', 'evil doers', and 'mutilators of the flesh'. No?

No. It's very easy to quote things out of context and bend them to your whims which is what you've done here. Paul was a "Jew's Jew" so that's not what he's saying at all. Again, because you take some items out of context in a passionate attempt to support an insupportable claim may reinforce your own ego, but does little to support your argument.

You didn't help me understand how I missed the context of that passage.Specifically what does he mean by "those men who do evil". Who are those men? And if they "do evil" , isn't that all we are talking about?

One of the issues I have with biblical citations is the ability to cherry pick. There's so much that is changed or reversed between the testaments that no clear picture can ever emerge.

Actually nothing is changed or reversed....but that's a whole other discussion.

god said "an eye for an eye" - jesus said "turn the other cheek."

I think that the teachings of the hebrew god are almost universally reversed by Jesus. His message is much gentler and populist, and not all insane, vengeful and capricious like the old T god.

The thing is though, that when you go to Catholic church they always quote the passages from the prophet's books that neatly fit into what gospels are trying to say about Jesus being the Messiah. They always quote Isaiah, who speaks grandly of what is to come, not all those crazy story books that talk about sodomy, rape, and eating poo bread.